14 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. remember the ad “Because you cant afford cheap paint”
    maybe the whole of global warming could be due to weathering of cheap paint. billions of dollars of carbon credits all due to twisted data sets.

  3. Ohoh. Time to put the lead back in paint? At least that would help speed up the green terroists dream of reducing the number of people around.But of course it would only be for sale in Africa/Europe. Next….antibiotics cause AGW by saving lives.

  4. Now this is science, the way it should be. This is the way the little discoveries are made that pave the way to enhanced understanding and more, rather than less, questions. The final work of art, approached one brush stroke at a time.
    It doesn’t take a village of *experts*. It takes the individuals that possess an innate sense of curiosity, the time and drive to search for answers, and the unwillingness to accept the *consensus* view.
    In the final analysis he may be right, or he may be wrong. But he will have nudged the knowledge base. That effort is NOT consistent with, nor is it a desirable endeavor, in the arena of “settled science”.

  5. About as exciting as watching paint dry.
    (rimshot please)
    Actually, this could be quite a discovery on top of the already obvious other factors we have seen here. I’m just wondering if there are standards in the construction and placement of Stevenson Screens? If there are differences in each Screen should there not be a coefficient factor for each to be applied to all readings?
    The settled science is far from settled, no matter what the lemmings say and do. The fact that Canada is even discussing carbon credits/taxes worries me.

  6. Two full degrees! That is astounding.And such variability. Im almost speechless.If this is real science it should be on the front page of every news
    paper on the planet!

  7. Keep in mind it’s not the absolute number that counts but the “repeatability” of that number over time in analyzing the temperature trends. In other words, no location probably perfectly represents the average air temperature of the surrounding district, so they all have errors to start with. As long as those errors stay constant over time, the trends that they demonstrate are relevant.
    What this experiment does demonstrate is that some temperature records may be suspect if they were captured with a latexed Stevenson screen (assuming the baseline device in the experiment correctly captures air temperature).
    BRK

  8. Texas Canuck, a meteorologist friend tells me that Environment Canada, the National Weather Service, the World Meteorological Organization, etc., all have different standards “based upon presumptions made years ago for which no supporting data can be found”.
    This from the WMO on placement:

    In order to achieve representative results when comparing thermometer readings at different places and at different times, a standardized exposure of the screen and, hence, of the thermometer itself is also indispensable. For general meteorological work, the observed air temperature should be representative of the free air conditions surrounding the station over as large an area as possible, at a height of between 1.25 and 2 [1.2 and 2.0] m above ground level. The height above ground level is specified because large vertical temperature gradients may exist in the lowest layers of the atmosphere. The best site for the measurements is, therefore, over level ground, freely exposed to sunshine and wind and not shielded by, or close to, trees, buildings and other obstructions. A site on a steep slope or in a hollow is subject to exceptional conditions and should be avoided. In towns and cities, local peculiarities are expected to be more marked than in rural districts. Observations of temperature on the top of buildings are of doubtful significance and use because of the variable vertical temperature gradient and the effect of the building itself on the temperature distribution.

  9. Brian
    “”””As long as those errors stay constant over time, the trends that they demonstrate are relevant.””””‘
    it’s not quite that simple, as the trend is correlated with “exisiting” data, (readings and extrapolations from the past, that have questionable quality)and use to project into the future. A small error projected too far into the future can play out one heck of an error, ‘specialy when “projected” using inadiquate models, and inadequate models is ALL they have!!

  10. Part of the experiment involves the weathering of the finish down to bare wood as well. So this becomes a time dependent variable in the equation….
    JCL

  11. As often happens with these MMGW posts,I cannot decide whether to laugh or cry.
    It is SIMPLY STUNNING that so many seemingly unimportant variables can be proven to have great effect on the crucial data obtained from these simple, small measurement devices.
    YET, MMGW scientists claim that the study of this planet’s unfathomably diverse environmental dynamics comprised of the complex interactions of the atmosphere, solar energy, oceans, weather patterns,land masses, man, etc,etc,etc,etc is SETTLED!
    Have these hucksters no pride as scientists?

  12. Posted by: teddy at January 15, 2008 6:04 PM
    “Have these hucksters no pride as scientists?”
    A fairly large group of the hucksters have no science background whatsoever. Another group of the hucksters are *scientists* in unrelated fields. Then there is the group within the hucksters that are *scientists* in name only.
    (It just occurred to me as I typed that: scientists-in-name-only is SINO. Sino- also is the preface meaning Chinese. Coincidence? Hm-m-m-m-m…)

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation